7.  The applicant's family owned a plot of land situated in Warsaw. The applicant is the heir of the owners of that property.
8.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.
9.  The applicant's predecessors requested to be granted the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree. On 27 December 1966 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the request on the basis that the plot of land had been designated for public use (namely, an agricultural co-operative).
10.  On 27 June 1967 the Warsaw-Mokotów District National Council (Prezydium Dzielnicowej Rady Narodowej) issued a decision granting the right of perpetual use of the plot of land to T. K.
11.  On 23 January 1992 the applicant's predecessor Z.S. lodged an application with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) for annulment of the administrative decision of 27 December 1966. On 10 February 1993 the Minister declared the decision null and void.
12.  On 14 June 2000 the Local Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) declared that the decision of 27 June 1967 had been issued in breach of law. However, the Board refused to declare the decision null and void in view of its irreversible legal consequences – on the basis of the 1967 decision a civil contract had been concluded with the perpetual user of the land who, in 1990, had transferred the rights to the estate to his son.
13.  On 3 March 2003 the Local Government Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation in respect of the 1967 decision on the grounds that he had not proved “an actual loss” (see domestic law part below).
15.  On 10 November 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment and awarded the applicant PLN 604,000. The court found that as a consequence of the unlawful 1967 decision the applicant had lost his property right and thus had suffered loss amounting to the value of that right. The court further considered that the State Treasury had the legal capacity to be sued for damages in this case.
16.  The State Treasury, represented by the Mayor of Warsaw, appealed against the judgment, arguing that the municipality (gmina) should have been sued in this case.
17.  On 14 July 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant's claim. The court, although it observed that the case-law had been divergent on the issue, inclined to the view expressed in a Supreme Court resolution of 16 November 2004, that the municipality – and not the State Treasury – had the legal capacity to be sued for damages resulting from an administrative decision issued before 27 May 1990, provided that the decision had been annulled or declared unlawful after that date (see domestic law part below).
18.  The applicant lodged a cassation complaint. He submitted that the judgment was in breach of relevant substantive law on account of an erroneous interpretation of the Local Self-Government Act of 10 May 1990. He also invoked Articles 3984 § 1 (3) and 3989 of the Civil Procedure Code arguing that the examination of the cassation complaint was justified because there was a significant legal issue in the case and a need for an authoritative interpretation of provisions which had been interpreted differently in the courts' case-law. The applicant gave examples of divergent case-law of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. He further pointed to the fact that the resolution invoked by the Warsaw Court of Appeal, amending the hitherto prevailing jurisprudence, had been delivered six days after the judgment of the Regional Court.
19.  On 10 January 2006 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation complaint. The decision was taken by a single judge sitting in camera and was not reasoned.
20.  On 7 December 2006 a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court adopted a resolution in other proceedings in which it concluded that the State Treasury had the legal capacity to be sued for damages caused by an administrative decision delivered before 27 May 1990, even if the decision had been annulled or declared null and void after that date.
21.  On 5 February 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court seeking to have the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 July 2005 declared contrary to law (see the domestic law part).
22.  On 15 June 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the complaint. The court concluded that the notion of the judgment “appealed from” within the meaning of Article 4241 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (preventing the examination of the complaint – see the domestic law part) required that a cassation complaint against a judgment had been lodged “effectively”, meaning it had not been rejected. In the court's view a cassation complaint which the Supreme Court had refused to entertain should be understood, for the purpose of this Article, as an “effectively lodged cassation complaint”, as well as a cassation complaint which had been examined on the merits. The Supreme Court in its decision of 10 January 2006 refused to examine the applicant's cassation complaint. The Supreme Court thus concluded that the judgment of the Court of Appeal had been appealed against effectively and the complaint under Article 4241 was not available.[1]